Skip to main content
Glama

HTTPfy network & DNS tools

DNSSEC chain validation

dnssec_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate the DNSSEC chain of trust for a domain from the root down (DS, DNSKEY, RRSIG) and report each zone as secure, insecure or broken.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "dnssec_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain (Enter domain to inspect)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds real context beyond them: the check walks from the root down and classifies each zone as secure, insecure or broken, which tells the agent what kind of result to expect. It stops short of mentioning timeouts, partial failures, or per-zone detail limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, scope and output classification packed in, and no filler. Nothing to cut.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and how results are labeled, which is enough to call it correctly. It could say slightly more about what 'broken' means or how partial chains are reported, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about the domain argument (IDN handling, subdomains, trailing dots), but nothing is required of it beyond the schema here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (validate the DNSSEC chain of trust for a domain) and names the exact artifacts inspected (DS, DNSKEY, RRSIG) and the report shape. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like dns_lookup or domain_health_report, none of which do chain-of-trust validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'validate' — an agent can infer this is the tool for DNSSEC verification, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling for non-DNSSEC DNS questions. Adequate minimum, no routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.